RELIABILITY 

AND 

ECONOMY 

. O F =-=. 

Louisville 

Hydraulic 

Cement. 

<s> 

Facts and Figures 

1905 . 

WESTERN CEMENT CO. 

INCOn.ORATCO. 

GENERAL SALES AGENT, 

NO. 247 WEST MAIN STREET, 

LOUISVILLE. KY. 

























ruri TorJ fan] iarp I7^r0 fnln3 mril ITOtJ lan-i I HJtJ rfLn3 f ] 


HIM 




rmJfrinlfrmlfrOilfrLHIf 


A 

THE LIBRARIES 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 


Avery Library 


[si pjtJ ITTiT]frird[rmJlTTrg|TTra 


ET|pjiJ[jT£iJ|jij-iJj |OT]|lTr^ 















§3]g§ 

THE EARLIEST KNOWN USE OF 


NATURAL ROCK 


HYDRAULIC CEMENT 


Was by the Egyptians 4,000 years ago. 
The Romans used it extensively about 
2,000 years later in constructing aqueducts 
and water reservoirs. Remnants of these 
ancient structures yet remain examples of 
the toughness and durability of natural ce¬ 
ment. 

The Pantheon of Rome, erected 27 B. C.. 
is the most remarkable instance in the 
world of the strength and permanence of 
cement. Its circular walls of concrete are 
about 20 feet thick and surmounted by a 
concrete dome spanning 142feet support¬ 
ed by brick arches. It has withstood the 
effects of time and the elements for nearly 
2,000 years, and does not show a crack. 

John Smeaton, an English engineer, 
may be said to have re-discovered cement, 
and to him is due the honor of having first 
employed it in modern times. Smeaton, 
after many experiments, produced a cement 
which was used by him in building the Ed- 
dystone Light House in the English Chan¬ 
nel in 1756. His researches and the result 
of his experiments were not made public 
until published by him in 1791. 










In the same year Parker secured liis first 
patent and five years later his second pat¬ 
ent on “A Certain Cement or Terras to be 
used on Aquatic and other Buildings and 
Stucco Work.” 

Parker claimed under this patent to pro¬ 
duce from “Certain stones or argillaceous 
productions,” a powder that with water 
formed a mortar harder than could other¬ 
wise be made. This powder came to be 
known as Roman Cement, a generic name 
later applied to all Natural Cements in 
England. 

An experience of over 100 years has dem¬ 
onstrated the truth of Parker’s claim under 
his second patent, as nothing has been dis¬ 
covered that will make mortar that ulti¬ 
mately becomes as hard as mortar made of 
Natural Cement. 

In 181S, twenty-two years after Parker's 
English patent, Canvas White discovered 
and patented a Natural Cement made from 
stone found near Fayetteville, N. V. 

In 1824 a cement works was established 
at Williamsville, N. Y., and its product was 
extensively used in the construction of locks 
on the Erie Canal. 

In 1828 the manufacture of Cement be¬ 
gan at Rosendale, N. Y. In the following 
year cement stone was discovered at Louis- 




ville in excavating the canal around the 
Falls of the Ohio, from which is made the 
now well known Louisville Cement. 

Although located in a then sparcely set¬ 
tled district, remote from the more thickly 
settled centers, with the Ohio River for 
many years the only means of transporta¬ 
tion, the use of Louisville Cement has 
grown until the consumption of it has ex¬ 
ceeded 2,000,000 barrels in a single year, 
and 36,000,000 barrels since 1870. 

The use of this vast quantity over so 
long a period in the construction of our 
greatest examples of engineering skill at¬ 
tests its permanency and suitability for 
many kinds of construction. 


[HE!! 

RELIABILITY 

SI 

OF... 

fug 

LOUISVILLE CEMENT 


Two kinds of cement are in general use 
in this country, Natural Hydraulic Cement 
and Portland Cement. 

Natural Cement is made from stone in 
which the proper proportions of the neces¬ 
sary elements have been combined by na¬ 
ture. Portland Cement is artificial, made 
by a combination of the necessary ingre¬ 
dients. 

a 






Mr. Tlios. T. Johnston, M. W. S. E., in a 
paper published by the Western Society of 
Engineers, entitled “Notes on Reliability 
of Louisville Cement,” referring to it says: 

“There seems to be no good reason why 
suitable raw material can not be obtained 
as cheaply as unsuitable material, and it is 
difficult to see why the manufacturer should 
have anj' incentive to use any but the proper 
material. It is very different with the mate¬ 
rials from which Portland Cement is made. 
They are not to be had in such unlimited 
and concentrated quantity, generally speak¬ 
ing, and when they are to be had the con¬ 
stant attention of a chemist is needed to 
determine that they are suitable. 

The raw materials being secured, their 
preparation for the Louisville Cement re¬ 
quires simply the always honest, the always 
unerring crunching of the rock crusher or 
the sturdy sledging of the equally reliable 
quarry hand. For Portland cement there 
must be drying and weighing and analyz¬ 
ing and grinding and other operations in¬ 
volving the faultful intelligence, the care¬ 
lessness, the capricious avarice of imperfect 
man. 

The raw materials for the Louisville Ce¬ 
ment being prepared, they must next be | 
burned, and herein again the Louisville 
Cement involves the greater simplicity, the 
kiln being so simple, the temperature so 
low, the drafts so readily regulated, and 
the charging of the kiln not needing such 
special care. With Portland Cement the 
type of kiln best suited for the purpose 
is a matter of controversy ; the method of 
charging the kiln requires care; high and 
uniform temperature for a prolonged period 
is required. With the Louisville product 
the process is one of simple calcining as 
in the manufacture of quicklime, while 





with the Portland product partial vitrifica¬ 
tion has to he done. The result of the op¬ 
eration with the Louisville product is that 
essentially the whole contents of the kiln is 
useful, while with the Portland prodtict a 
large proportion, sometimes all, is refuse.” 

Mr. Uriah Cummings says in his work 
on American Cements: 

“If the public could be brought to real¬ 
ize that one year is but the beginning of 
the test, that the real trial is but fairly 
started, and is on, so long as the work en¬ 
dures in which the cement is used ; if it 
were understood that after five years not 
one engineer in a hundred can tell either by 
simply looking at a wall laid in cement, or 
by the use of the hammer, whether the ce¬ 
ment used was Rock or Portland Cement, 
and if it were known that it is a fact, that 
when we have occasion to blast out old con¬ 
crete laid in Rock Cement twenty-five years 
before, we find it as hard as any rock; and 
if it w r ere possible for the public to become 
as familiar with three to five year tests as 
they are with the prevailing tests, then 
there would be a remarkable overturning of 
preconceived notions in regard to cement 
values, and thinking men would undertake 
a readjustment of their opinions.” 

Mortars made of artificial cements attain 
their ultimate strength in from four to six 
months, then sometimes decline in strength, 
as is shown in a diagram published in the 
Annual Report of the Mayor of Philadelphia 
for the year 1903, reproduced on pages 8-9. 

In Professional Papers No. 28, Corps of 
Engineers, U. S. A., it is said : 




“The constructing engineer is confront¬ 
ed by no problem more difficult than to de¬ 
cide whether a certain cement, when placed 
in a work, will behave in a predetermined 
way. This is especially true of Portlands. 
Other cements are much more reliable un¬ 
der conditions of exposure for which they 
are suited 

The difficulties arise from the fact that 
tests for acceptance or rejection must be 
made on a product not in its final stage. A 
cement, when incorporated in masonry, un¬ 
dergoes for mouths chemical changes in 
the process of setting, so that the material 
subjected to strains in the work is not the 
material tested, but a derivative of it. The 
object of tests is to establish two probabili¬ 
ties: First, that the product of the given 
cement will develop the desired strength 
and hardness soon enough to enable it to 
bear the stresses designed for it; second, 
that it will never thereafter fall below that 
strength and hardness.” 


It is known that the strength of Louis¬ 
ville Cement mortar increases indefinitely. 
This may be demonstrated by examining 
any of many of the structures in which it 
was used. In the older structures it is 
found to be as hard as natural rock. 

John S. Sewell, Capt. Corps of Engi¬ 
neers, l’. S. A , selected by American Socie¬ 
ty of Civil Engineers to read a paper before 
the International Engineering Congress in 
St. Louis, 1904, in his paper says: 

“Much of the work, both old and new, 
executed in Natural Cement, has attained a 
degree of strength that it would not be safe 






to expect from the best Portland, and Natu¬ 
ral Cements seem not to give the trouble 
from disintegration after setting due to 
causes within themselves, or to exposure to 
sea-water that is experienced occasionally 
with Portlands.” 

Although 36,000,000 barrels of Louis¬ 
ville Cement have been used in varied forms 
of construction, the manufacturers of it 
have never had a suit brought against them 
for damages resulting from defective ce¬ 
ment. 


ECONOMY 


The best material for any purpose is 
the kind that accomplishes all the objects 
sought at the least expense. 

It is now being claimed that it is as 
economical to use Portland as Louisville 
Cement in the construction of concrete foun¬ 
dations. The fallacy of this claim will be 
apparent to any investigator. 

The manufacturers of Louisville Cement 
have kept pace with the times, and by means 
of improved fine grinding machinery now 
grind cement so fine that exceeding ninety 
per cent, will pass a screen of 1 0,000 meshes 
per square inch. Such fineness was impracti¬ 
cable while the buhr stones were in use, on 


7 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2017 with funding from 
Columbia University Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/reliabilityeconoOOwest 


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-BUREAU OF S U R V E YS-TESTI NG LABORATORY 

PHILADELPHIA, PA. 

Diagram Showing Average Results of Cement Tests Neat and with Sand--Made 1903 


















































which all Natural Cement until recently was 
ground. 

By fine grinding the efficiency of the 
cement is increased. A mortar of one part 
cement, as now ground, to three parts sand 
is of about equal strength to a mortar of one 
part cement, as formerly ground, to two 
parts sand. This increased efficiency should 
not be overlooked in figuring cost. 

Prof. Baker says on page ninety-eight of 
his new edition of “Masonry Construction": 

“If a strength of about 370 pounds per 
square inch after six months is sufficient. 
Natural Cement is the cheaper. Nearly all 
carefully conducted tests of the strength of 
cement mortar, six months old or over, give 
a similar result, except that the above limit 
is usually between 300 and 350 pounds. A 
considerable change in prices does not ina- 
teriall)' alter the result, and hence the con¬ 
clusion may be drawn that if a strength of 
300 to 350 pounds per square inch at six 
months is sufficient, Natural Cement is more 
economical than Portland.’’ 

Mr. Chas. Hermany, Past President Amer¬ 
ican Society Civil Engineers, in a letter 
dated July 4, 1901, referring to the construc¬ 
tion of the Clear Water Reservoir, says: 

“ * * * * The total volume of concrete 
aggregates about 27,000 cubic yards, two- 
thirds of which is Natural Cement concrete, 
and the remaining third Portland Cement 
concrete, the latter, in place, costing per 
cubic yard more than double the price of 
the former. 


The experience had in the building of 
these concrete walls justifies the statement 
that, were a similar work to be executed, it 
would justify the exclusive use of Natural 
Cement concrete for such similar work, 
with absolutely satisfactory results, and 
with precisely such Louisville Cement as 
was used in the constructed work, with a 
single important modification, which modi¬ 
fication would be to properly hydrate the 
Louisville Cement, after manufacture and 
before using it in the concrete, for the pur¬ 
pose of retarding its rate of setting, which 
rate is too rapid for satisfactory construc¬ 
tion with newly manufactured or non-hy- 
drated cement of this class. 

This statement is not made for the pur¬ 
pose of decrying the superior quality of 
Portland Cements, but to emphasize the not 
generally recognized fact that for many 
classes of public works the Louisville Nat¬ 
ural Cement is as good and reliable as Port¬ 
land Cement, and at a greatly reduced cost, 
in the construction of concrete masonry.” 


As an example of actual results obtained 
in practice, the experience of Mr. Jno. F. 
Wilcox, Gen’l Manager and Chief Engineer 
of the Retort Coke Oven Company of Cleve¬ 
land, O., may be considered as typical. 

Mr. Wilcox had a concrete foundation to 
put in at his coke oven plant, and decided 
to use Louisville Cement for this purpose. 
At the same time and under the same con¬ 
ditions he built a retaining wall with Port¬ 
land cement concrete, so that a comparison 
of cost is possible. The result was a saving 
on this one piece of work alone of $17,500.- 


11 


oo, and the work is equally as good as if the 
higher priced material had been used. 

A barrel is 3.5S cubic feet packed Louis¬ 
ville Cement, and will make as much paste 
as an equal bulk of any kind of cement, re¬ 
gardless of its weight. 

The ingredients of mortar and concrete 
are proportioned by volume and not by 
weight. 

The use of Louisville Cement by large 
Industrial Companies for foundations of all 
kinds in their plants, where the greatest 
service for least cost is determined by able 
engineers, is evidence of its adaptability and 
economy. 

Over 61,000 barrels have already been 
used in one steel plant at Lorain, Ohio, and 
the work is not yet completed. 

Louisville Cement is especially’ adapted 
for use in mortar for : 

All classes of masonry construction. 

Concrete foundations. 

Concrete (cinder) for fireproofing. 

Filling for safes and vaults. 

Cellar floors. 

Cement sewer pipe. 

Cement sand brick. 

Backing of hollow building blocks. 

Lining cisterns. 







STRUCTURES 

IN WHICH LOUISVILLE 
CEMENT WAS USED 


FEDERAL BUILDINGS. 


Cincinnati, O. 
Chattanooga, Tenn. 
Memphis, Tenn. 
Johnson City, Tenn 
Greeneville, Tenn. 
Leavenworth, Kas. 
Ft. St. Phillip, La. 


Louisville, Ky. 
St. Louis, Mo. 
Logansport, Ind 
Richmond, Ind. 
Chillicothe, O. 
Fort Riley, Kas. 
Ft. Jackson, La. 


INDUSTRIAL PLANTS- 

Hammond Packing Co., St. Joseph, Mo. 
American Sheet ft Tin Plate Co., Monesson, Pa 
LaFayette Box Board Co., LaFayette, Ind 
Elgin Watch Co., Elgin, Ills. 

Lorain Steel Co., Lorain, O. 

Whittaker Iron Co., Wheeling, W. Va. 

Retort Coke Oven Co., Cleveland, O. 

Mingo Steel Works & Furnace, Mingo Junc¬ 
tion, O. 

American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., Elwood, Ind. 
Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., Natrona, Pa. 
Proctor & Gamble Co., Ivorydale, O. 

Standard Oil Co., Sugar Creek, Mo. 

Armour & Co., East St. Louis, tils. 

Columbia Steel Co.. Elyria, O. 

Roan Iron Co., Rockwood, Tenn. 

Clairton Steel Work, Clairton, Pa. 

Hammond Packing Co.. Hammond, Ind. 

Ohio Steel Co., Youngstown, O. 


13 







Lookout Mountain Iron Co., Sulphur Springs, 

Ga. 

American Spinning Co., Greenville, S. C 
Xorth Carolina Electric Power Co . Marshall, 
N. C. 

Monaghan Mills, Greenville, S. C. 

Telephone Building, Augusta. Ga. 

Saxon Cotton Mills. Spartanburg. S. C. 
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Crystal City. Mo. 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, ETC. 

State House. Indianapolis, Ind. 

State House, Springfield, Ills. 

State House, Lansing, Mich. 

State House, Atlanta, Ga. 

State House, Austin, Texas. 

Court House, Marietta, Ohio. 

Railway Round House, Boyles, Ala. 

C. B. & Q. Shops, Hannibal, Mo. 

Railway Round House, Knoxville, Tenn. 

Frick Building, Pittsburg, Pa. 

Union Trust Building, Cincinnati, O. 
Bessemer Building, Pittsburg, Pa. 

Overton Building, Memphis, Tenn. 


LOCKS. DAMS. ETC. 


Cumberland River. 
Warrior River. 
Illinois River. 
Allegheny River. 
Green River. 


Muskingum River. 
Kanawha River. 
Monongahela River. 
Ohio River. 
Tennessee River. 


Kentucky River. Big Sandy River. 

Sault Ste. Marie. Fox River, Wis. 

ChattahODClie River Dam, Columbus, Ga 
Waterworks Dam, Hot Spiings, Ark. 


14 







Dam at Little Rock, Ark. 

Water Works Reservoir, Covington, Ky 
Waterworks Reservoir, Nashville, Tenn. 
Water Works Reservoir, Crescent Hill, Ky. 
Waterworks, Minneapolis, Minn. 

Water Works, St. Louis, Mo. 

Dam, Little Kalis, Minn. 

Dams in Tallapoosa River, Ala. 

St. Anthony Kails Improvements, Minneapo¬ 
lis, Minn. 

Water Works, Birmingham, Ala. 

Sanitary Drainage Canal, Chicago, Ills. 

RAII,ROAD BRIDGES. 

Many large Railroad Bridges, among them 
being 

Eads Bridge, St. Louis. 

Illinois Central Bridge, Cairo, Ills. 

C. B. & Q. Bridge. Alton, Ills. 

Kansas City & Memphis Bridge, Memphis, 
Tenn. 

L- & N. Bridge, Henderson, Ky. 

N. & W. Bridge, Kenova, W. Va. 





A TEST OF LOUISVILLE CEMENT 


Fineness 

Tensile strength per square inch 

95 # 

through 
100 sieve 


Neat 

1 Cement 

2 Sand 

7 days 

28 days 

6 months 

199 lbs 
301 lbs. 
430 lbs. 

152 lbs. 
279 lbs. 
463 lbs. 



Load 60.000 


POUNDS 


CINDER CONCRETE ARCH TEST. 

One part Louisville Cement 

One part Sand. 

Four parts Cinders. 

5% ft. wide, 16 ft. span, 8 inches thick at crown. 
2 in. curved T rails support, 30 in. from center to 
center. Concrete four weeks old when weight was 
put on. After 2 months no deflection on one side 
discernible and less than <4 i« on the other side. 

Test made by Frank B. Abbott, Architect, 22s 
La Salle Street, Chicago, Ills. 























C 1&S 












